Thursday, 30 June 2011

I post this at midnight, when the strikes of public sector workers throughout the United Kingdom engage in union strikes, against the budget cuts to their service, pay and pensions, inflicted by the government most prominently towards teachers and academics in schools, colleges and universities. I have a personally deep anger towards the cuts and privatization in education, alongside unaffordable and extortionate £9000 tuition fees dividing the rights of university education between ruling class from the underprivileged.

First of all, the agenda of Education Secretary Michael Gove seems to have a particular contempt for the arts and humanities. I therefore have a particular contempt for Gove. His contempt for universal education is remarkable. All direct budget cuts effecting the education of children and students are disgraceful, but subjects such as art, philosophy, literature and music have a specially severe discrimination. I refer to the tremendously entertaining but powerful indignation of a parent refuting the regressive elitism of Gove's dictated "Baccalaureate", in relation to the hopes and dreams of his creative daughter.

Gove's Academies Program gives public funding to schools choosing to become private as part of a marketized system monopolized by the lobbying interests of corporations, with their courses and standards decided outside of the national curriculum, including "faith" schools teaching fundamentalist bigotry and pseudoscience. Due to not being part of the public sector, these academies can decide the pay of teachers and staff institutionally restrained from unionizing.

Meanwhile, political dissidents are being arrested under justification of Tony Blair's "anti-terrorism" laws, while Ed Miliband opposes strike action. This is the Labour Party?

Children and their parents will understand that teachers striking do so in concern and belief of their futures and opportunities, and the injustice methodological in its ruin.

Saturday, 25 June 2011

I am not a pacifist, but I do not advocate or condone political violence. I am not a Trotskyist, but I believe Trotsky was quite right when he said the following in his 1932 essay What Next?:

"Where force is is necessary, it must be applied boldly, decisively and completely. But one must know the limitations of force; one must know when to blend force with a manoeuvre, a blow with an agreement."

If according to Emma Goldman voting would be abolished if it changed anything, then if violence was effective it would not be manufactured by the authoritarian state itself. There would be no such thing as agent provocateurs, police agents dressed to portray the "rioter" stereotype, and ushered across the lines of riot squads to break windows and throw Molotovs for the mass media cameras. It at worst amounts to an infantile mentality of delusional insurrectionism.

This has been documented and witnessed first hand, in the false flag operations of fascist governments and dictatorships, to CIA and MI5 operations suppressing anti-war subversion in the 1960s, to western government tactic against anti-corporate direct action and anti-austerity revolt today.

However, it relates to a certain Orientalism. Egyptians sacrificed their bodies to leap into the shields of riot squad regiments, and such acts were hypocritically heralded as part of their revolutionary struggle. But such acts are distinguished in their bold decisiveness amidst the turning point of radical revolt and fundamental overthrow.

Mohandas Gandhi was not entirely non-violent, for one advising Indian civilians to own firearms to defend themselves from colonial aggression. He practiced civil disobedience as a realized conclusion of most effectively politically attaining liberty and independence for India, not as a doctrine.

Free expression, dissemination and non-compliance, the foundation of revolution, is what tyrannical governments are truly intimidated by, and dedicate to systematically and brutally oppress. This is the dimension of Gandhi's tritely mentioned quotation: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Saturday, 18 June 2011

Money is credit. Credits are units computerized by banks and international traders and conglomerates that are ultimately worthless in any sort of inspired and developmental value or meaning. Neo-feudal conservatives advocate a return to the gold standard, or the re-legalization of trade and purchasing in precious metals and materials. The ability of governments to print money without this constraint is based upon adaption to modern society, but basically bases itself upon the same constructed monopolism. They're right to criticize how the paper printed out of thin air can cause such mass catastrophe and injustice, so in this sense, there's a certain irony to the rhetoric of those called deficit hawks. They address important economic issues otherwise unconsidered and ignored. There just seems to be something inherent about the system they don't realize.

It is no coincidence that government procurements to the interests of the wealthiest elite is seemingly infinite, while personal debts of the general population are rigidly overwhelming and extortionate to the independent advancement of their lives, and keep undeveloped nations in the oblivion of suffering.

Friday, 17 June 2011

The term propaganda is not just a pejorative. Its purpose is formulaic and deliberate, and is only not referred to objectively because of the now educated public understanding of its meaning. An Austrian-American publicist named Edward Bernays is considered to be the father of the public relations industry, and pioneered physiologically systematic propaganda along with the inventor Ivy Lee (uncle of William S. Burroughs, who said in Naked Lunch: “A functioning police state needs no police.”)

Bernays correctly observed that we exist “in an age of mass production. In the mass production of materials a broad technique has been developed and applied to their distribution. In this age, too, there must be a technique for the mass distribution of ideas. “ And in a 1928 publication titled Propaganda, Bernays said the following. “Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.” And in indoctrinated conformity, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.”

A mind of indignation, and dissenting democratic principle, could easily interpret these quotes as being from deconstructing and subversive writings of an anti-authoritarian individualist, like Orwell or Voltaire. But they are in fact an established manifesto and guide, a belief and intention, and when understanding so, we overcome our incredulity to have a totally elevated and dissected view of society.

The dehumanizing cognitive science of Bernays is the foundation of modern consumerism, and the state propaganda conditioning public obedience and compliance accordingly. Another named Walter Lippmann established the concept of manufacturing consent, which many will know as the title of a book on media manipulation by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman. The analyzations of Lippmann formed a consensus, with its first point claiming public opinion against war was “too pacifist in peace and too bellicose in war, too neutralist or appeasing in negotiations or too intransigent”.

It was therefore necessary to establish a doublespeak propaganda line to excuse government agenda, which Chomsky and Herman portray in the context of imperialistic crimes against humanity in 1960s Indochina. A great American philosopher and educationalist, John Dewey, defined the meaning of a free society, of individual minds in education of free, critical and creative thinking, and free information making all exertions of authority democratically accountable for its exertion and responsibility. “As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.” It is time for us to enlighten the shadow.

Thursday, 16 June 2011

The people are now standing against their owners, as George said. There is change, and how intimidated the owners are. They constantly resort to greater brutality, suppression and censorship, but it is only the will of people that will defeat them.

Tuesday, 14 June 2011

COINTELPRO, the Counter Intelligence Program, was a covert intelligence operation in the 1960s, implemented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that targeted organizations and individuals in American society it deemed in its own words to be "subversive" to the agenda of the U.S. government. Its tactics included espionage and assassination by secret agents, propaganda, smear campaigns, disinformation, police brutality, perversion of justice, and agent provocateurs trained to incite violent during peaceful demonstrations. Those known to be "subversive", and were accordingly suppressed included: Dr. Martin Luther King and the churches and activist groups of the African-American civil rights, and women's rights movements, the Black Panther Party, student and civilian organizations opposed to the Vietnam War, John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Muhammad Ali, Abbie Hoffman, and numerous socialist and communist political parties (groups such as the Klu Klux Klan, American Nazi Party and the John Birch Society were given marginal amounts of attention). The efforts and movements of "subversives" such as these, in opposing racism and segregation, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and standing for free expression with direct action and civil disobedience, was an unprecedented democratic empowerment and advance of modern society opposed to the authoritarian hierarchy that systematically persecuted them. COINTELPRO was only a specifically targeted conspiracy in a particular era of resistance, indignation and strife, but its intentions and maneuvers are not unexceptional nor absent today in the slightest. Concerns over dissidents and classified discussions on state action against their subversiveness has been institutionalized in western countries since then, and remains so. The now public domain FBI file of historian Howard Zinn comprises 400 pages of details on his anti-war activism, documented by five secret agents over a 25 year period, which on observing illustrates the extent of Zinn's intimidation. He warned that voting "is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens."

The modern COINTELPRO in the United States is the PATRIOT act, a chilling acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," which was renewed by the U.S. congress in May. These "appropriate tools" permit the wiretapping of communications without a warrant and access to private records by the authorities, juryless and indefinite imprisonment of civilians, and deportation without trial, including to military bases where torture, referred to by the sickening and Orwellian euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques" has been inflicted. The PATRIOT alongside the Transport Security Administration molesting, humiliating, traumatizing, and scanning the bodies of plane passengers and their children, have been justified by the threat of Islamist terrorism and the identical forms of crimes against humanity committed by it. Essentially, the terrorists have won. Fundamentalist purveyors of atrocity have conveniently served the agenda of the authoritarian corporate state. There is no doubt it will use its conveniently bestowed totalitarian powers, and will seek to make them as overarching as possible to the same and greatest extent.

Exactly like Howard Zinn, an anarchist anti-corporatist activist in Austin, Texas named Scott Crow, was targeted with surveillance by the FBI, excused under the conditions of the PATRIOT act, his peaceful organizing and protest being somehow possibly relating to al-Qaeda, with the preconditioned propaganda of "antiterrorism" therefore making this contempt of basic civil liberties justified.

Saturday, 11 June 2011

It isn't alright to rape someone. No matter what their gender or your sexuality. No matter how they choose to dress. No matter who they may be. It is not acceptable to sexually violate, harass or disrespect any person in any circumstance. It is never morally permitted to engage in sexual activity with somebody without their explicit consent and indication.

The fact we have to point this out, let alone march on the streets to explain and indicate it, is incomprehensibly appalling. I find it difficult to express my anger, incredulity and indignation that it is necessary for women to protest against politically, culturally and societally indoctrinated excuse of rape and objectification, or even have the threat and insecurity of this happening to them at any point or severity in their lives.

Friday, 10 June 2011

I believe in a world where those who have achieved great things receive admiration and notoriety. Who inspire, invent, cure, discover, empower, educate, liberate and create. They are the reason we live and transcend to define ourselves. How we can live and not just exist.

But we have come to live in a culture where individuals attain fame for nothing but existence. There are those at the very least who are “celebrities” for engaging in something manufactured to unfathomably homogenized mediocrity based upon the profit motive that, conveniently subdues the minds of the majority.

“Writers” publishing illiterate and superficial books, “singer-songwriters” recording autotuned and mindnumbingly mediocre…tunes, “bands” playing a chord or two in these songs, or even just lipsyncing “compositions” formulaic and asinine to the point of being beyond parody.

“Filmmakers” release things bearing something resembling the bareness of a plot based around stereotypes portrayed by people with acting abilities as void as their characters. This was collectively referred to as “prolefeed” in Orwell’s dystopia.

If we believe in merit this warrants less than the smallest amount of it, but the cult of celebrity embodies even less than this. Celebrities of consumerist marketing are paid attention to with time of the media dedicated to them for being celebrities. Their existences and pretence of importance is a preoccupation. It is difficult for any functioning mind to conceive.

Wednesday, 8 June 2011

On his Talksport radio show, George Galloway struck a conversation with a caller named "Carl", on the subject of the anniversary of the 1989 Tienanmen square massacre in China. The reality of history bitterly makes it necessary for us to refer to it as so. It was the only uprising of civil resistance against Communist authoritarianism of this era's spring that was remarkably brave, as in Eastern Europe, but crushed so bleakly and brutally. Galloway's response on the event to "Carl" however, was as follows:

"Yes I was thinking of you [Carl], when I was looking for pictures of the hundreds of deaths." And that "not a single" picture of a murdered dissent has "been adduced."

I answer Galloway with a few.

No, these pictures do not illustrate all the hundreds slaughtered by the People's Liberation Army on order of the Chinese state. But they are a starting point to convey the meaning Galloway's denialism. Only one example of his despicable apologetics for totalitarianism.

Monday, 6 June 2011

It is worth viewing the trial of Dominique Strauss-Kahn for the rape of lowly waged New York maid beside the IMF's condoning of George Osborne's "austerity measures" in the UK, namely cuts in public funding and the lowering of taxation for the country's wealthiest corporations. The report was made by interim John Lipsky, who was the IMF representative of Chile during the reign of Augusto Pinochet's radical right-wing dictatorship, admired by Margaret Thatcher and enforced by the general's genocidal junta.

The IMF is essentially an international extortion racket. It grants loans to the governments of the world's poorest and degragated countries, especially in the third world, being overwhelmingly unaffordable to their people according to the financial hierarchy's decisive measures. The consequential atrocities in the desperate dealings with this coercion is unspeakable, and would be considered the most despicable sort of crime on an individual level, of which the vested interests of corporate-banking conglomerates profiteer from.

"I know that strike levels remain historically low, especially in the private sector. Assuming this pattern continues, the case for changing strike law is not compelling. However, should strikes impose serious damage to our economic and social fabric, the pressure on us to act would ratchet up."

I place emphasis on this remarkable totalitarianism. The terror of threatening "serious damage to our economic and social fabric" seems straight out the automated state intimidation of the People's Republic of China. These words from the tragically awkward specter of the former Saint who condemned the greed, corruption and incompetence of major corporations and banks, are the final nail in the festering coffin of Liberal Democrat credibility to me. They are in contempt of basic democratic human rights and civil liberties. The Tories and their stooges bearing a Little Orange Book have a systematically criminal agenda, and will suppress dissent through the draconian authoritarianism of Orwellian bureaucracies and the brutality of the capital's mercantile police thugs. Cable's references to Mao don't seem so ironic now. The laws implemented against unions will make the country a national Wisconsin. The doublespeak of exerting your right to strike will cause it to be taken from you.

Sunday, 5 June 2011

Ludwig Wittgenstein, a Catholic, and undoubtedly the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century, once wrote in once of his notebooks:

To believe in a God means to understand the question about the meaning of life.
To believe in a God means to see that the facts of the world are not the end of the matter.
To believe in God means to see that life has a meaning.

To Wittgenstein, "God" appears to have been the conceptualization of his ignorance, the fundamental meaning of his philosophical genius. He would perhaps admit an objective belief in an individually conceived God to be contradictory, as in his Tractatus. As any of us admirers would like to, I would ask him particularly, how and why does the God you choose to have faith in define and direct the meaning of your existence? Wittgenstein could say that a greater knowledge is relative to our understanding of God, but this is merely self-fulfilling. We distinguish empirical reason and subjective conviction according to realization defined by evidence. It could ultimately amount to the justification of the belief and faith in any concept, no matter how absurd, as logic defines absurdity. In this sense, the only God I can even be agnostic towards is an entirely absurd one.

The Rabbis for human rights are Jews who go to the West Bank and Gaza and sit in rabbinic indignation, in front of the bulldozers ordered to illegally demolish the homes of the Palestinian population. Where the rabbis have not stood, they help the families with their lives destroyed to rebuild these homes. They witness the despair of mothers and fathers and the inconceivable traumatization of their children. These are young people that the Islamist and antisemitic terrorist organizations rely and pray upon to indoctrinate and recruit to commit their own crimes against the Israeli population. But when they see men in kippahs and Orthodox robes standing with and beside them, they are led to peace in their cause for Palestine. There is nothing more undermining and endangering to the self-determination of the Jewish people than the Israeli government's war crimes and crimes against humanity. And there are Jews in Palestine, killed and inflicted with atrocity, by an administration with the Shoah as its justification.

Friday, 3 June 2011

We have already been dead, non-existent, unconscious, for the infinite amount of time before we were born. So has the rest of the psychical universe. And how are we human beings? As all those non-existent before us, in immortality, in life as the precedence to death. Humanity is not our fragile bodies and our primordial equiblrums, this is only biological. But in our words, our creations, our relationships, forming the conception of our exertions and externalizations. Our consciousness is pre-death, infinitely marginal in time beside infinity itself. As Camus defined the ultimate philosophical question: "Why don't we all commit suicide?", The choice is between the infinity of death or immortality of our pre-death, the greatest life we endeavor to achieve and define within the limitations of our mortality. It is distinguished by living in the name of forever, or just existing according to the infantile and primitive perception of matterless or supernatural eternity.

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

The Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) is led by an individual named Harpal Brar. Under his leadership, it reveres Stalin and adheres to the policies of his rule, along with Chairman Mao's. It denies Stalin's role in the Great Purge of dissidents and his responsibility for the Holodomor, historical revisionism comparable to Holocaust denial. They internationally associate with the parties that are the only legally permitted under their totalitarian governments: the communist parties of China and North Korea (along with Islamist insurgents of Iraq).

After Mummar Gaddafi pledged "no mercy" and for every man, woman and child in Bengazi to be “hunted down in every neighbourhood, every street, every house,” a dozen or so stood on the streets of London bearing the the dark green standard of Gaddafi's Libya, with the CPGB (M-L)'s publication declaring "victory to Gaddafi!", following the first NATO airstrikes before preceding genocide of the civilian population. Their appropriately delusional propaganda mostly consists of undeviating conspiracy theories about oil (like Gaddafi's). On their website, like the incredible agriculture and manufacturing of the Soviet Union (Stalin's Holodomor did greatly alleviate its economy), in Gaddafi's Libya "women have gained full legal equality with men. Everybody has enough food on the table and every Libyan is provided with decent rent-free housing, free, good quality health care and free education." Under Gaddafi's rule, women do hold equality with men by law, but according to the reports of Human Rights Watch"women and girls suffer in "social rehabilitation" facilities in Libya. These include violations of their rights to liberty, freedom of movement, personal dignity, privacy and due process. Libyan authorities are holding many women and girls in these facilities who have committed no crime, or who have completed a sentence. Some are there for no reason other than that they were raped, and are now ostracized for staining their families’ “honor.” Officials transferred the majority of these women and girls to these facilities against their will, while those who came voluntarily did so because no genuine shelters for victims of violence exist in Libya." Female genital mutilation is routinely practiced.

Libya has one of the worst human rights records in the world. Before the atrocities inflicted against its revolutionaries, dissidents were imprisoned for years or their lives without trial. The revolution stands for democracy, as Gaddafi's regime holds no free elections in the slightest (it is a dictatorship afterall). The only free press is controlled by the state, civillians have no right to protest, and workers have no right to unionize or strike. The country is a de facto Islamic theocracy, where religious minority groups are disacknowledged and suppressed (antisemitic pogroms and genocide of Libya's Jews have entirely erdicated its Jewish population.)

Do the lives of Libyans amount to being free for having the privilege of laboring for menial wages to buy food so they and their families don't starve to death? Like Stalin, we have to suspend our sense of rationality and indignation to find anything gratifying about Gaddafi's western arms trade-supported rule (huzzah, Dear Leader Gaddafi has implemented some successful economic programs). It takes these perverse Stalinists in purpose and nature do so, to patronize an opposition fighting for their lives and freedoms against Gaddafi's thugs, assassins and brutal mercenaries, and amount their resistance to nothing but inconvenient anxieties over unemployment.